Austerity by Design; Comment on “Ensuring Global Health Equity in a Post-pandemic Economy”

Document Type : Commentary


Department of Sociology & Political Science (ISS), Norwegian University of Science & Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway


Several scholars across many disciplines argue that neoliberal, free-market economic conditions drive inequalities, generating poverty and misery due to unfair austerity, ultimately affecting human health. Professor Labonté’s prescription is that we jettison these policies targeting economic growth and development for generating greater fairness for the world’s poor. This rejoinder argues contrarily that the criticism of neoliberal policies are misplaced, and that degrowth is really “self-imposed austerity,” which will not benefit the poor. This rejoinder scrutinizes some simple stylized fact and assesses the soundness of the broader arguments. The evidence suggests clearly that becoming wealthy and following prudent economic policies is the best path to improving population health, equity, and other progressive outcomes. Badly required growth for the poor comes from free markets and good governance, and equity for the sake of fairness neither results in better health outcomes, nor an improved environment.


  1. Labonté R. Ensuring global health equity in a post-pandemic economy. Int J Health Policy Manag.
    2022;11(8):1246–1250. doi:34172/ijhpm.2022.7212
  2. GBD 2019 Demographics Collaborators. Global age-sex-specific fertility, mortality, healthy life expectancy (HALE), and population estimates in 204 countries and territories, 1950-2019: a comprehensive demographic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet. 2020;396(10258):1160-1203. doi:1016/s0140-6736(20)30977-6
  3. Beckfield J. Does income inequality harm health? New cross-national evidence. J Health Soc Behav. 2004;45(3):231-248. doi:1177/002214650404500301
  4. Cutler D, Deaton A, Lleras-Muney A. The determinants of mortality. J Econ Perspect. 2006;20(3):97-120. doi:1257/jep.20.3.97
  5. Deaton A. The Great Escape: Health, Wealth, and the Origins of Inequality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2015.
  6. Easterlin RA. Three revolutions of the modern era. Comp Econ Stud. 2019;61(4):521-530. doi:1057/s41294-019-00098-9
  7. de Soysa I, Vadlamannati KC. Does free-market capitalism drive unequal access to health? An empirical analysis, 1970-2015. Glob Public Health. 2021;16(12):1904-1921. doi:1080/17441692.2020.1849350
  8. Feldmann H. Economic freedom and human capital investment. J Institutional Econ. 2017;13(2):421-445. doi:1017/s174413741600028x
  9. Chiappini R, Coupaud M, Viaud F. Does attracting FDI affect population health? New evidence from a multi-dimensional measure of health. Soc Sci Med. 2022;301:114878. doi:1016/j.socscimed.2022.114878
  10. Bergh A, Nilsson T. Good for living? On the relationship between globalization and life expectancy. World Dev. 2010;38(9):1191-1203. doi:1016/j.worlddev.2010.02.020
  11. Solt F. Measuring income inequality across countries and over time: the standardized world income inequality database. Soc Sci Q. 2020;101(3):1183-1199. doi:1111/ssqu.12795
  12. 2022 Environmental Performance Index. Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, Yale University; 2022.
  13. de Soysa I. Economic freedom vs. egalitarianism: an empirical test of weak & strong sustainability, 1970–2017. Kyklos. 2022;75(2):236-268. doi:1111/kykl.12290
  14. Scruggs LA. Political and economic inequality and the environment. Ecol Econ. 1998;26(3):259-275. doi:1016/s0921-8009(97)00118-3
  15. Graham EM. Fighting the Wrong Enemy: Antiglobal Activists and Multinational Enterprises. Washington, DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics; 2000.
  16. Easterly W. The White Man's Burden: Why the West's Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2006.
  • Receive Date: 15 October 2022
  • Revise Date: 27 November 2022
  • Accept Date: 30 November 2022
  • First Publish Date: 03 December 2022